Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 9, 2011 12:49pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Arrow Films is the current distributor, you can save yourself a whole lot of time by simply contacting them directly.
The link is: http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/

"A longtime victim of presumed public domain status like many of its foreign classic brethren and subjected to countless lousy unauthorized VHS releases, Rififi had its original luster restored when Criterion issued a licensed, remastered version on DVD containing a half-hour video interview with Dassin, production design art, production notes, and the trailer, with Australia's Madman recycling most of the those extras for a strangely converted PAL release."
Hope this helps?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: oldbones Date: Sep 9, 2011 3:24pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

jory2

Thanks for the info. Sent an email...let's see what happens.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Sep 11, 2011 3:14pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

I would be surprised if the current distributor says, "oh yeah, this film is free, buy our dvd copy it and you can sell it too". Most likely they will tell you the film is copyrighted and show that renewal notice as evidence. Even without renewal the film is GATT eligible. The valid renewal means they don't need to file an NIE (for GATT protection).

I think the only time writing a rights holder (or rights claimant) can be useful is if you tell them you are using something as PD, and see if they come after you. One time I found the lawyer for one of the major film distributor in a forum. It was apparent that he was sending take down notices to YouTube, so I told him "I am using the film xxx as PD, everybody says it is PD but nobody can say exactly why. Can you tell me? I showed him the site where I was using it". He didn't reply. I took that as an indication that the film was PD.).

This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-09-11 22:14:16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: oldbones Date: Sep 11, 2011 5:53pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

HektorT..

Thanks for the input. You are probably correct, but if they want me to buy their dvd, copy and sell it, that tells me it is pd. And there are many other ways to secure a copy of that movie.

I think you and I are seeing different things in that entry from USCO. I read it as an original registration, not a renewal as you do. I do not see the word renewal anywhere in there. And the PA prefix in the registration number, I believe, is for music.

Thanks

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Sep 12, 2011 12:32pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

You're right about the registration not saying renewal. PA corresponds to performing arts. for a renewal the number would need to begin with RE.

But the date is correct. I think one of the vagueries of the 1978 copyright act allowed works that were not previously registered when initially published, to be registered before the renewal window expired. Which brings about the question of not being registered promptly. But this is really neither here or there for a film originally published in France. It is eligible for GATT. But the copyright owner didn't file an NIE.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Sep 13, 2011 6:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

When dealing with films produced outside of the U.S.A., would this be a reasonable rule of thumb?

If the movie is still under copyright in its country of origin, it is probably protected in the U.S.A. also.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: oldbones Date: Sep 13, 2011 8:15am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

very reasonable..
do you know of any way to check 'outside' copyright records?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Sep 13, 2011 8:40am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

No, I'm afraid not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 13, 2011 8:32am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

"If the movie is still under copyright in its country of origin, it is probably protected in the U.S.A. also."
Probably? Why wouldn't it be?

Works created in Canada are protected under the Canadian Copyright Act, the UK the UK Copyright Act ...
Perhaps where people are getting 'confused' is by the ease in which the internet has enabled global sharing?
That being said, should someone in the USA be charged with copyright infringement for Works under the Canadian copyright act, the Canadian laws prevail. The same can be said for USA Works, UK ...


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Sep 13, 2011 4:11pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

The US doesn't respect the laws of other countries, per se. That's why we have treaties like GATT.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 13, 2011 4:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Do you have the treaties mixed up?
GATT (which was the a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) is not the treaty I was referring to.
The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyrights of Works of authors from other signatory countries in the same way as it recognizes the copyrights of its own nationals."
The US has been a signatory member of the Berne Convention since March 1, 1989

"The US doesn't respect the laws of other countries, per se"
Seriously? Hows that possible?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Sep 13, 2011 5:46pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Not sure what you're on about. I Don't really care to know what. You seem to understand that there are international treaties, and that's good.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 13, 2011 5:59pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

And you seem to misunderstand the treaties, good for you!

This post was modified by jory2 on 2011-09-14 00:59:18

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Sep 13, 2011 6:09pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Since I didn't write word one about any treaty...well why waste my time.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 13, 2011 6:22pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

"The US doesn't respect the laws of other countries, per se. That's why we have treaties like GATT."

You wrote the above, are you ok?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Sep 13, 2011 6:34pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Your just getting sadder and sadder. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: larus Date: Sep 14, 2011 3:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

GATT (which was the a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) is not the treaty I was referring to.
The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyrights of Works of authors from other signatory countries in the same way as it recognizes the copyrights of its own nationals."
The US has been a signatory member of the Berne Convention since March 1, 1989


The issue is that the Berne convention did not protect works that were public domain in the US as of March 1, 1989 because of a lack of compliance with US copyright law, even if they were still under copyright in their home country. This is expressed in Section 12 of the Berne Convention Implementation
Act of 1988
:
Title 17, United States Code, as amended by this Act, does not provide copyright protection for any work that is in the public domain in the United States.

Before the Berne Implementation Act, US copyright protection was not automatic and had to be opted in via the following steps:
(a)inclusion of a copyright notice in the published work according to a strict format
(b)registration with the US Copyright Office, such registration granting a 28-year copyright term
(c)renewal registration with the US Copyright Office in the 28th year following the original registration, which granted an additional copyright term for the work

Running afoul of any of these requirements would result in the work becoming public domain, for example by:
-omitting the copyright notice
-including an invalid notice (for example by using (C) in the notice instead of © or the word copyright)
-not filing for a renewal (which would cause the work to enter the public domain at the end of the original 28-year term)
-filing for the renewal too early (before the last year of the original term) or too late (after the end of the original term)

This is why Bill mentioned GATT. The purpose of the 1994 Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA) amendments to GATT was to restore protection to foreign works still under copyright in their country of origin but that had become public domain in the US because of non-compliance with the unique intricacies of US copyright protection.
But there were still exceptions. For example, foreign works published in the US within 30 days of publication in their home country are exempted from copyright restoration under URAA.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm is a good primer on the copyright status of works based on publication date and other factors.

This post was modified by larus on 2011-09-14 10:45:20

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 14, 2011 6:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

hey larus, I'm familiar with the WTO, copyrights and intellectual property is my field of study.
What Bill had wrote was, "The US doesn't respect the laws of other countries, per se. That's why we have treaties like GATT." which as you know is completely false.
Why it became two boys pissing on a tree I have no idea?
Hopefully Bill will read your post and be better informed without further misinterpretations.

larus the link you provided, http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm , 'Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States', deals with public domain. Unfortunately this website does not just publish public domain content.




This post was modified by jory2 on 2011-09-14 13:36:19

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: larus Date: Sep 15, 2011 12:27am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

hey larus, I'm familiar with the WTO, copyrights and intellectual property is my field of study.
Then I apologize about lecturing you. I was under the impression that you thought all works were covered by the Berne Implementation act regardless of whether they were published in the US before or after the act became effective. Discussions held on this board tend to revolve around the copyright status of films that are several decades old and this has become my frame of reference by default.

What Bill had wrote was, "The US doesn't respect the laws of other countries, per se. That's why we have treaties like GATT." which as you know is completely false.
I don't know that it is completely false. What I do know is that US copyright is determined by US law, not foreign law. And although works published after March 1st, 1989 enjoy automatic US copyright protection for many decades to come, the situation for works published before that date remains a murky mess where copyright notices, registrations, renewals and URAA come into play. The latter case is what most discussions on this board revolve around.

Hopefully Bill will read your post and be better informed without further misinterpretations.
Bill has been on this board for years and already knows what I summarized, which can be confirmed by a look at his posting history.

larus the link you provided, http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm , 'Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States', deals with public domain. Unfortunately this website does not just publish public domain content.
The presence of copyrighted content on the site is something that regular contributors are unhappy about. Those who actually put time and effort into capturing and uploading public domain films are not thrilled at the idea of their work being for naught if the Archive is shut down due to blatant copyright violations.
As a matter of fact, requests are regularly posted on this board so that published content that is identified as copyrighted gets removed. Bill himself has posted many such requests, as can be seen from his posting history.

Anyway, I only jumped in because I was under the impression that you thought the Berne Implementation Act of 1988 applied retroactively. Since you are actually well-versed in copyright and intellectual property and don't need any lecturing from me, I'll just crawl back under my favorite rock.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 15, 2011 5:55am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

larus you wrote:
"I don't know that it is completely false. What I do know is that US copyright is determined by US law, not foreign law. And although works published after March 1st, 1989 enjoy automatic US copyright protection for many decades to come, the situation for works published before that date remains a murky mess where copyright notices, registrations, renewals and URAA come into play. The latter case is what most discussions on this board revolve around."

Granted the US only joined the Berne Convention in 1989, a country like Canada however has been a member since 1928. Like the US Canada has it's own Copyright Act, and is not determined by foreign law. Should a case of copyright infringement be brought against a member of the US by a Canadian copyright holder Canadian laws prevail larus.
The Canadian term(s) of "fair dealings" come into play, and not the more lenient "fair use" terms as describe in the US copyright act.
The US is a member of the WTO and the Berne Implementation act, therefore the US is obligated to respect the laws and recognize the copyrights of Works of authors from other signatory countries in the same way as it recognizes the copyrights of its own nationals.

Is it the laws that are murky? Or public perceptions of the laws? After reading what some people have posted in the forums I would argue that it's more public perceptions.

larus you wrote:
"Anyway, I only jumped in because I was under the impression that you thought the Berne Implementation Act of 1988 applied retroactively. Since you are actually well-versed in copyright and intellectual property and don't need any lecturing from me, I'll just crawl back under my favorite rock."

THANK YOU for jumping in! It was my understanding this website was intended to enhance the exchange of thoughts ideas and information.
Your thoughts are always welcome larus.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 14, 2011 2:39pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

hi larus, i've attached a link to this post that explains GATT - WTO in better detail.
The link is not by me, nor is the info on the link me generated.
maybe you could pass the info along to Bill?

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact1_e.htm

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Sep 13, 2011 9:29am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

As far as rules of thumb go, that is more or less reasonable as far as I can see.

But if people will use it to ask stuff to be removed without doing any research then it is detrimental. Without almost any thought at all I can give you some cases where the rule of thumb doesn't apply.

If the movie doesn't meet US copyright requirements (e.g. no valid notice pre-1976 or not renewed pre-1964) and it was intially published outside of the US but also published inside the US within the next 30 days it is not protected by GATT, so it would be Public Domain. I'm sure there are a lot of exceptions to this rule.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 10, 2011 11:08am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Anytime, I hope it proves useful for you.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 11, 2011 5:10pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Careful who you take free advice from. Some posters have an ax to grind against the Archive and give advice that may not be in the Archives or your best interest. At least do a search on any posters past posts to determne their forthrightness. Just cut and paste the Poster names into the search box and choose 'Forums'.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 11, 2011 6:34pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

I pointed the poster in the direction of the distributor, do you have a problem with that?

And I'm going to make this really clear for you, I don't appreciate your inference of me giving anyone misleading "advise". Grind to axe or not.
If there is any information on any post I wrote, including the ones I wrote to have my own content removed, nothing is preventing you from discussing what you believe to be inaccurate information.
What's the deal with your childish and paranoid rant?

I doubled checked all the posts I have made Cranky, I didn't come across one with me giving advise, or any with misleading information.

Not sure what your agenda is, but this website's all about access to knowledge.
I supplied links to Government websites that provide free access to information.
How can having a better understanding of intellectual property and copyrights not be in everyone's best interest, including the archive?



This post was modified by jory2 on 2011-09-12 01:34:16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: derkman96 Date: Sep 12, 2011 4:59am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

That guy was probably talking about when you asked multiple times to have materials that you owned copyrights on removed (if I'm reading that right...?) I happen to think that is a reasonable request. Just my opinion.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 12, 2011 6:09am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

"Some posters have an ax to grind against the Archive and give advice that may not be in the Archives or your best interest." is what the cranky one wrote, how can that possibly relate to my copyright protected content?

What I find the most ridiculous is the Archive has admins and moderators who are well versed in copyrights and intellectual property, and yet every time there is a valid question or concern the admins and moderators seem to vanish.

Every time I visit this website there are posts with "remove due to copyright violation", so clearly there's an on-going problem that needs to be addressed.

Ignorance of the law does not change the law, not knowing something is copyright protected does not change the copyrights.

Should I or anyone here take material's from this website thinking the material's are either public domain or usable under the fair use doctrine and receive a letter from the rightful owner demanding a cease and desist as well an amount for damages I think it highly unlikely the Archive is going to jump to the rescue.

Maybe reading the Archives terms of service regarding 3rd party use of content found on the Archive, would inspire more people that come to this site to be mindful, and a hell of a lot more eager to understand the basics of copyrights.

I'm not the first person who posted factual information on this site only to be met with anger paranoia and "personal" re-readings of the copyright act.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 12, 2011 3:44pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

I’ll try a story. Recently our church was getting ready for the Memorial Day parade. Everyone was outside preparing the float or lining up to march. Clouds came overhead and a light rain started to fall. As it got darker, a member of the church named Doug ran up. Doug is a beloved member of the church; he is very active, always available to help out and full of faith. But he’s just a little bit cautious. Doug ran up and shouted, “The parade is canceled! The rain is too heavy!” Many of the members prepared to leave and some grabbed their things to go. We then realized that Doug was not actually in charge and might be being overly cautious. When he was asked how he knew the parade was canceled, Doug became defensive and unhappy because, as he said, “He knew it!” Fortunately a church leader came out and told Doug it was alright, the rain looked like it was letting up and we should continue setting up. The rain did stop and we had a grand parade. Doug is still an important part of the church, but when it rains we don’t mention the parade.
Some of the people who do the Copyright research on the Archive show remarkable perseverance and research skills. Their scholarship is to be commended. It’s the “Stop, don't upload, I think it is copyright!” statements that cause a problem.
Perhaps the Public Domain Doug’s should let the up loaders post the films and recordings they are unsure of. Of course not the TV show from last night or a just released movie. But material not seen in ten years and not available to the general public should be given a shot. If it is copyrighted, the moderators will remove the copyright materials. And PD Doug will not have to shout at the clouds so much.


This post was modified by MrCranky on 2011-09-12 22:43:06

This post was modified by MrCranky on 2011-09-12 22:44:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: derkman96 Date: Sep 12, 2011 6:56pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

not to rain on your parade (cough cough) but if I just upload anything I don't realize there is a copyright on and hope someone will delete it, that's kind of like just peeing on every downed powerline and hoping that the power was turned off. It's sort of pointless, because I could have figured out if the power was still turned on, and there isn't really any going back, as jory2 said. Once I pee on the power line, I can't un-pee.
maybe all the people smart enough to upload and hope the films are pd should figure out how to un-pee.
Just a thought.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 13, 2011 3:01pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

derkman96 you may find some the info on the website below useful and easier to read?
http://www.spl-law.com/
I worked with one of the lawyers there are year or so ago, their website and blog are very user friendly.
The website has a legal/FAQ tab as well

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 13, 2011 2:51pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

I certainly will never ask you to help me with electrical work!
But to use your waste elimination analogy, let us suppose you are in Grand central Station, need to use the sanitary facilities and do not know where those are. 1. You could look for a Rest Room sign and follow it (IA's FAQ policy). 2. You could ask those passing nearby (Post a question.) Most people will be too busy or unsure how to answer. Some will point to the sign. 3. One crazy guy will show you his Boy Scout manual and describe the local water table and other nearby geographic features. Then he will loan you his collapsible shovel, offer a small packet of tissues and tell you to pack out your trash. 4. A group of drunken ninnies will tell you to pee on that wire over there. They will photograph you when you do it and post it on a lp page using technology they did not create and cannot build or repair. They will complain and curse at you when you ask them to stop. 5. Once in a while, a devious and hateful person will send you down the wrong corridor where you may be hurt.
Only in point 4 did the train station need protecting. Could you explain what harm will come to the Internet Archive if someone accidentally uploads an old film that was still under copyright?
And I daily observe a branch of industry that exists due to my uncompensated work several years ago. At least 75 people now have jobs using a technique I came up with while on a hike bouncing a stick through the mud. It simulated the effect pulsed lasers had on an alloy which was rotating at very high speed. I’m pleased the industry has grown and supports those people but do wish I had gotten rich from it. Should I ask them all for $100?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: derkman96 Date: Sep 13, 2011 3:11pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Alright. 1) I'm a boyscout... not all of them are handbook-thumpers. 2) sure, not much harm will come of the station, but you and others may be harmed. You would be harmed in point 5 and 4 and arguably in point 3. Think of point 5 as someone reads your previous post and decides to upload films that may or may not be copyrighted. Now let's say the owner of the copyrighted work sues you for damages. Let's say the work was downloaded 100 times. at a maximum fine of $250,000 you would have a $25,000,000 fine. Think of point 4 as when you are blatantly told to upload a bootleg of the movie that came out yesterday. You already know not to do that as stated in your previous post. Imagine point 3 is someone like jory2 giving you all the materials you need to figure out whether a film is under copyright. You decide you don't want to look because it would be difficult so you write off jory2 as "One crazy guy [who] will show you his Boy Scout manual" and upload the film anyway. If the film is under copyright and the owner of the copyright sues you for illegally distributing his/her film then you could get fined up to $250,000 for each time it was downloaded. Now let's imagine how point 2 could go. Point 2, you post a question in the forums about a movie, let's say you heard the movie Five Corners from 1987 is public domain. Your suspicions are confirmed and in the forums someone says "yes, it is PD if it doesn't have a notice in the opening or closing credits" and you upload the movie here. You then see that the film does have a notice. The right thing to do here would be to un-pee and just delete the file and all derivative files and then ask for the identifier to be deleted. If you just wait for someone else to delete it, you could potentially be sued by the owner of the copyright. Now this was a screwup on your (my) part. You (I) didn't look to see if the film had a notice. If you get the ok to post a film unconditionally and then someone else finds that it is under copyright for a reason that you didn't know about that isn't necessarily your fault. You should still however delete the files and post a remove request. Now those are just 2 examples that won't happen often. More often then not, you find the guy who actually knows where the bathroom is and everything is bliss. Point 1, as you said, would be to read the faq which tells you what to look for to see whether or not a film COULD BE public domain. So basically it comes down to whether or not you have any ambition. Think about how much it matters that you need to upload a movie here without posting a forum post. If someone wants to see the movie they'll see if they can find anything about its copyright status. If no one wants to see it, you probably don't need to upload it here anyway.
And just for the record, the Five Corners thing actually happened to me. I was man enough to say "Hey guys, I screwed up" and asked for it to be removed.

http://www.archive.org/post/378541/five-corners-1987
http://www.archive.org/post/390209/please-remove

but yeah. If you have something you want to upload I could definitely say that a forum post won't hurt. It's the people who upload and have hit-or-miss personalities to the point where they feel like they need to upload their movie collection then see how many need to be deleted. In more cases a movie will be under copyright than public domain. The public domain is shrinking... so yeah. You can find quite a few knowledgeable people here in the forums if you're looking to post a few films.
And get back to me if you learn to un-pee :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 15, 2011 2:55pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

My position is still that since IA removes materials proven to be copyrighted, posts should not misguidedly state that things are copyrighted or suggest actions that may cause problems. I do not think you or most posters do that. But building a case against a resource as valuable as the IA, no matter how well it’s presented, may not really be for the public’s good. Your thoughtful writing may help some and you seem nice but there is a polecat nearby.
And sorry I did not describe things well in my earlier post. I’m the guy with the Boy Scout manual. Actually called a Handbook, it contains a good deal of practical information. But in my issue, the section on tracking does give instructions on following shape-shifters back to their lair.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 19, 2011 6:32am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Cranky your position on Copyrights mirrors your (self serving) position on the bulk of the issues you dig-your-heels into; misguided and ignorant.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 23, 2011 2:37pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 23, 2011 2:48pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

"suspicions"? what are you on about now?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: PhoenixCando Date: Sep 23, 2011 4:50pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Just read through all of the posts (attacks, counterattacks and intellectual masturbation - LMAO) throughout this thread. Talk about school yard children pissing up trees, on each other and in the sandbox. Yes, some of the links and information was/is helpful; but, for heaven sakes break it off. Time out you guys - enough already. If some dumb a$$e$ want to piss on downed power lines and/or jump off of high cliffs - let them.
Just my 2 bits of a 25¢ CDN piece = about 24.321432045918863702694814670688¢ US quarter.
Now, how about we start another thread arguing about the real time variable value rate of exchange (ASK vs BID) of my CND 2 bits. It would be more productive. ROTFALMSAO.

This post was modified by PhoenixCando on 2011-09-23 23:28:58

This post was modified by PhoenixCando on 2011-09-23 23:29:20

This post was modified by PhoenixCando on 2011-09-23 23:50:59

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 24, 2011 7:48am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

PhoenixCando thank you for the insightful thoughtful and highly educational comments in your post.



This post was modified by jory2 on 2011-09-24 14:48:21

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: PhoenixCando Date: Oct 13, 2011 9:51pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Jory:
Thanks for the acknowledgement for scattering the children or sending back home to their mothers. LOL :) I have seen this type of nonesense way too often in other forums. This one was particularly "bad" and stunk to high heaven.
I am very surprized that my few intelligent words and my funny ridiculous comparison actually put and end to the continual hostility and holier than thou comments.
I think I just made a friend.
Find me at my YouTube Channel is "PhoenixCanDo".
Life IS good. :D
Bob.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 12, 2011 4:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Help Please

Do you even consider, if just for a moment, that uploads are being uploaded to the internet?
Going out on a limb here, I would feel safe in saying that you are not a copyright owner who's property was illegally used on the internet? Have you ever tried to get your content removed after it's been illegally uploaded?
Are you aware of the fee's involved with DMCA agent services, legal services, the time invested and energy spent having to almost validate what is clearly written in the Copyright/ DMCA Acts.
"If it is copyrighted, the moderators will remove the copyright materials." by that time the horse has left the barn, and you find that fair?
The internet has given rise to a whole new breed of hoarders. Most people see all content as free to copy 'n' paste distribute and use. Some even think if there's no visible copyright on the content it's not copyright protected. Some go as far to think websites on the internet are all "fair-use". Where the hell else does a website publish content if not on the net? How does anyone come to conclude that the internet is void of legal copyright protected material's?
Have you never seen the disclaimer; "Found on the net therefore assumed to be public domain."?
Striking a balance between copyright owner and internet user has been one hell of an up-hill battle. Not because the laws aren't clear, or that people can't read.
Why there is still so much piracy is a mystery to me and many of the people I work with.
I've sat through a few court cases for claims of copyright infringements, "I didn't know" won't work, "fair use" does not apply to some content, "I didn't see a copyright notice" is not valid either.
I am not "Doug" nor am I pointing to the sky claiming rain may be coming.
When people are in a court faced with copyright infringement the storm has already hit.